The error occurred on the INITAPI
Started 4 tasks 4 ATTACHES
THE RETURN CODE IS
THE ERRNO IS ..000E
THE RETURN CODE IS
THE ERRNO IS ..000E
THE RETURN CODE IS
THE ERRNO IS ..000E
THE RET
Gil wrote me privately and asked if this would cause an ABEND or a SYNAD. I
looked up my test job, and yes, it appears that writing output to DD * will
cause a SYNAD, not an ABEND, ***provided you give it a blocksize***, i.e.
//TESTOUT DD *,BLKSIZE=100
Charles
-Original Message-
From: I
> Writing is harder.
As I recall, define a DD with DD * and then write to it.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:40 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Creating an I/O
Spot on, Bob. No TSO environment. Thanks.
Staffan
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/
>> Possibly silly question, but I need to test a SYNAD routine, and I
>> can't think of any way to actually produce an I/O >error upon
>> command. Can anyone point out any solutions?
>
>Create a Unix file with lines longer than LRECL; allocate it with
>FILEDATA=TEXT and read it.
>
>With practicall
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:23:56 + "Gainsford, Allen"
wrote:
:>Possibly silly question, but I need to test a SYNAD routine, and I can't
think of any way to actually produce an I/O error upon command. Can anyone
point out any solutions?
BSAM READ of a smaller incorrect blocksize. Or modify a Q
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:23:56 +, Gainsford, Allen wrote:
>Possibly silly question, but I need to test a SYNAD routine, and I can't think
>of any way to actually produce an I/O error upon command. Can anyone point
>out any solutions?
>
Create a Unix file with lines longer than LRECL; allocate
Possibly silly question, but I need to test a SYNAD routine, and I can't think
of any way to actually produce an I/O error upon command. Can anyone point out
any solutions?
Regards,
Allen Gainsford
Info Developer, Banking Shared Services
HP Enterprise Services (South Pacific)
--
Try PGM=IKJEFT01,PARM=
Bob
Staffan Tylen wrote:
Thanks for the tip but I run both in batch using the same JCL except for the
EXEC statement, which either points to IKJEFT01 or to the compiled program.
Wrong! SYSPROC is of course changed to STEPLIB also. And the ALLOC is for a
temporary data set
Jim Mulder wrote:
Well, of course it does. The purpose of the DUMP and REIPL
options of V XCF,sys,OFF,etc. is simply to set the 0A2 wait
state reason code to a value which drives the appropriate AutoIPL
actions as defined in the WSAT (Wait State Action Table).
See MVS Planning: Operations
Thanks for the tip but I run both in batch using the same JCL except for the
EXEC statement, which either points to IKJEFT01 or to the compiled program.
Wrong! SYSPROC is of course changed to STEPLIB also. And the ALLOC is for a
temporary data set so the prefix should not come into question anyway,
This did the trick. Thanks, Chuck!
Allthe best,
Scott
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Chuck Arney
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:29 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: XMIT Manager
>
> Under Win7 you
> For those present in Seattle for the very successful Session 2007: Ask
> the Experts & MVS Program Closing, there was some disagreement about
> whether V XCF,sys,OFF,REIPL would honor the AUTOIPL MVS settings in
> DIAGxx or always re-IPL with the last settings used.
>
> Empirical evidence bei
Could it have something to do with Prefix processing; where it's successful
when run in foreground because a Prefix is added to the filename, but not in
background because without the Prefix, you end up with an invalid dsn???
Just a guess.
All the best,
Scott T. Harder
Mainframe Services, Inc.
N
>I remember the arrival of the newfangled 3380 at the data center I worked at
>in the early 80's.
I remember it well, too.
They were considered way too expensive to use for paging.
As a matter of fact, we were still paging on 3330's, because 3350's were also
considered too expensive.
That chan
I'm staring myself blind on a silly problem that I've created for myself.
Here is a very advanced REXX program:
/* rexx */
address TSO
"ALLOC F(FILE1) NEW TRACKS SPACE(1) RECFM(F B) LRECL(80)
http://cheatedbylife.com/2010/03/20/20gb-in-1980-vs-32gb-in-2010/
I remember the arrival of the newfangled 3380 at the data center I worked at in
the early 80's.
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_3380.html
---
17 matches
Mail list logo